1. Define the assignment
Describe the product or service, the claims to examine, the intended use of the findings and the access you can lawfully provide. The written scope should identify deliverables, product version where relevant, exclusions and dependencies. A request does not commit you to a charge.
A named expert and quote are proposed for your review. Relevant experience, availability and conflicts affect matching; a score or fit estimate is not a warranty. Expert acceptance and the required conflict declaration precede company acceptance of the quote. Do not pay an expert privately to obtain a different verdict.
2. Before accepting a quote
The accepted written terms must make the following clear. Ask for missing details before paying:
- The question, named expert, work to be performed and deliverables.
- The expert professional fee, platform fee, currency, applicable taxes and total amount payable; any separately agreed expenses or usage rights.
- When funding is required, the delivery date or period, and what happens if necessary access is delayed.
- The factual-review process, cancellation/non-delivery remedies and expert payment arrangements.
- Whether publication is possible, the company's publication decision and the applicable policy version.
3. Delivery and changes
Work starts after funding is confirmed and the agreed access is available. Estimated effort in hours is not a calendar delivery promise. Your order's written deadline controls; there is no universal delivery time or automatic extension hidden in this policy.
Provide test access that is authorized and proportionate. Use test or anonymized data where possible. Do not send passwords in public fields. Agree changes to scope, fees or dates in writing before additional work. Report delays promptly; neither party should silently treat missing access as acceptance of new terms.
4. Factual review, not editorial control
You receive the complete assessment before either the expert or NamedProof publishes it. You may identify factual errors, provide additional evidence and submit a separately identified response. The expert may correct supported mistakes but retains responsibility for findings, ratings, conclusions and limitations.
You cannot require a positive rating, remove substantiated weaknesses, replace the expert's prose with marketing copy, or condition payment on publication. Disagreement with a supported conclusion is different from failure to deliver the contracted work. Report missing work, fabricated evidence or other quality concerns through the complaints process.
5. Your publication decision
For new orders, you can keep completed work private or approve publication of the complete record. Silence is not approval. A recorded decision applies to the reviewed version and may lock the record; changing a final decision requires contacting us, not assuming a reversible switch. A private-only assignment needs a separate agreement before any public use.
Choosing privacy does not itself entitle you to a refund for completed work. Statutory rights and remedies for non-delivery or non-conforming work remain. Published assessments disclose the sponsor and payment. The public library is a sponsor-selected subset, not an unbiased list of every commissioned result.
6. Using the result
Use approved findings with their author, sponsor disclosure, scope, date and material limitations. Link to the complete public record when sharing an excerpt. Do not crop a mixed conclusion into an unconditional endorsement, imply government certification, or claim a guaranteed effect on Google, AI answers, procurement or sales.
An assessment concerns the tested scope and version. A changed product may need revalidation. Advertising, paid distribution, translations, extra tests and broader licences are not included unless agreed. Previously accepted orders retain their agreed terms.